SED-4838 added IDE handling for plan referencing

[neogucky]

No description provided.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request introduces the PlanReferencePolicyService to handle plan reference modes and navigation permissions, particularly for IDE mode, and refactors several components to use Angular's signal-based inputs and view queries. Key feedback includes resolving a critical runtime error by allowing signal writes in the initialPlanContextEffect, replacing non-null assertions in ArtefactsFactoryService to prevent potential TypeErrors, restricting plan navigation checks to CallPlan artefacts, and using an optional viewChild in CallPlanComponent to avoid early-access runtime errors.

[gemini-code-assist]

Since this.initializeContext eventually calls this._planEditorService.init(), which writes to signals (such as planContextInternal or other state signals), running this inside an effect without { allowSignalWrites: true } will throw a runtime error (NG0600: Writing to signals is not allowed in a template or an effect by default). We should explicitly allow signal writes for this effect.

Suggested change

	private readonly initialPlanContextEffect = effect(() => {
	const context = this.initialPlanContext();
	this.initializeContext(context ?? undefined, true);
	this.repositoryObjectRef = this._planEditorApi.createRepositoryObjectReference(context?.id);
	});
	private readonly initialPlanContextEffect = effect(() => {
	const context = this.initialPlanContext();
	this.initializeContext(context ?? undefined, true);
	this.repositoryObjectRef = this._planEditorApi.createRepositoryObjectReference(context?.id);
	}, { allowSignalWrites: true });

[neogucky]

Not relevant for Angular 19

[gemini-code-assist]

To prevent potential runtime TypeErrors, we should avoid using non-null assertions (!) on plan.attributes, callPlan.attributes, and callPlan.dynamicName. If any of these are undefined, the application will crash. Let's use defensive checks instead.

Suggested change

	const callPlan = artefact as AbstractArtefact & CallPlan;
	callPlan.attributes!['name'] = plan.attributes!['name'];
	callPlan.dynamicName!.dynamic = callPlan.useDynamicName;
	const callPlan = artefact as AbstractArtefact & CallPlan;
	if (plan?.attributes) {
	callPlan.attributes = callPlan.attributes ?? {};
	callPlan.attributes['name'] = plan.attributes['name'];
	}
	if (callPlan.dynamicName) {
	callPlan.dynamicName.dynamic = callPlan.useDynamicName;
	}

[gemini-code-assist]

Calling canNavigateToReferencedPlan on a CallKeyword artefact is semantically incorrect and potentially misleading, even though it currently returns true. We should only perform this check for CallPlan artefacts.

Suggested change

	return (
	['CallPlan', 'CallKeyword'].includes(artefact._class) &&
	this._planReferencePolicy.canNavigateToReferencedPlan(artefact)
	);
	if (artefact._class === 'CallKeyword') {
	return true;
	}
	return (
	artefact._class === 'CallPlan' &&
	this._planReferencePolicy.canNavigateToReferencedPlan(artefact)
	);

[gemini-code-assist]

Using viewChild.required for a property that might be accessed by the parent class (BaseArtefactComponent) or during early lifecycle hooks (like contextChange or ngOnInit) can cause a runtime error if accessed before the view is initialized. Using an optional viewChild is safer and more robust.

Suggested change

	protected readonly formReference = viewChild.required<NgForm>('form');
	protected get form(): NgForm {
	return this.formReference();
	}
	protected readonly formReference = viewChild<NgForm>('form');
	protected get form(): NgForm | undefined {
	return this.formReference();
	}